Council Reference Data
Structured Response Format
Every council agent MUST return this JSON structure:
{
"consultant": "gemini|codex|glm|kimi|claude-deep-review|claude-codebase-context",
"success": true,
"fallback": false,
"confidence": 0.0-1.0,
"severity": "critical|high|medium|low|none",
"findings": [
{
"type": "security|performance|quality|architecture|bug|documentation",
"severity": "critical|high|medium|low",
"description": "...",
"location": "file:line",
"recommendation": "..."
}
],
"summary": "One-paragraph summary"
}location: MANDATORY for /council review findings. Format: file:line (e.g. src/api.ts:42).
Expertise Weight Matrix
Task Gemini Codex GLM-5.3 Kimi K3
Security 0.90 0.80 0.75 0.70
PR Review 0.85 0.90 0.75 0.80
Architecture 0.85 0.70 0.80 0.75
Code Quality 0.70 0.80 0.70 0.80
Performance 0.75 0.85 0.70 0.80
Brainstorm 0.65 0.60 0.85 0.80
Algorithms 0.70 0.75 0.85 0.80
Debugging 0.75 0.90 0.75 0.80Scoring Thresholds
Score Meaning
───── ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
0 False positive. Doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
25 Might be real, but unverified. Could be false positive.
50 Real but minor. Unlikely to occur in practice.
75 Verified real. Will impact functionality. Important.
100 Confirmed. Frequent in practice. Evidence conclusive.
───── ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────Filter threshold: Only findings scoring >= 80 appear in the final report.
False Positive Taxonomy
Score 0 (auto-reject) if a finding matches any of these:
- Pre-existing issue not introduced in the current changes
- Problem that a linter, typechecker, or compiler would catch
- Pedantic nitpick that a senior engineer would not call out
- General code quality complaint NOT backed by project CLAUDE.md
- Issue on lines that were NOT modified in the changes under review
- Intentional functionality change clearly related to the broader change
- Code with explicit lint-ignore or suppress comments
Synthesis Formula
Weighted Score = Σ(Opinion × Expertise × Confidence) / Σ(Expertise × Confidence)